Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
.a. estimates that the number of iraq and afghanistan veterans in its health care system will reach well over half a million at some point next year. that is this aisn' this a 100% e 2008. this is a big challenge and one that we have no choice but to step up to meet if we're going to avoid some of the same mistakes we saw with the vietnam generation. that's why this bill includes nearly $3 billion to meet the health care needs of veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan, which is a nearly $600 million increase over last year. but it is more than just the sheer number of new veterans that will be coming home to the v.a. in the near near future. it is the extent of their wounds, both visible and invisible, that will require an untold resource from our nation. you know, through the wonders of modern medicine service members who would have been lost in previous conflicts are coming home to live productive and fulfilling lives. but they will need a lifetime of care from the v.a. and that's why part of this bill includes significant investments for research in a number of areas, including trauma
in afghanistan in a strategy of nation building that is not the best use of our national security, not the best use of our soldiers who are there to fight for our national security, but those are decisions that were made in the past. and we must pay the bill on those decisions even when i disagreed with them. and then we need to put together a plan that takes on our deficit and our debt, and that plan has to put all of the options on the table. some of my colleagues across the aisle, they said, well, we want to protect the tax spending programs where we've tucked in tax provisions for the wealthy and the well connected. we want to defend those. we don't want to touch those for the best-off americans. but we want to cut the programs for working americans. that is unacceptable. we have seen enormous increase in the disparity between the wages and welfare of our citizens in general and the best-off becoming much, much wealthier proportionately. we can't continue to say that we're going to protect the well-connected while attacking working families. that's not the america we want to build. we want
arsenal. the current inventory is getting old and worn down from iraq and afghanistan. some equipment can be refurbished with life extension programs, but there is no getting around the fact that others must be replaced. when it comes to our military modernization accounts, he said the proverbial low-lying or low-hanging fruit, those weapons and other programs considered most questionable have not only been plucked, they have been stomped on and crushed. what remains are much-needed capabilities relating to our air superiority, our mobility, long-range strike, nuclear deterrents, maritime access, space and cyberwarfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that our nation's civilian and military leadership deemed absolutely critical. and he gave examples of a new tanker. he noted the ones we have are twice as old as many of the pilots who are flying them. a new generation strike fighter, the f-35. he said we have got to build more ships. the size of the navy has sunk to the lowest number since prior to world war ii. the army and marines, doing the bulk of our fight
's why. how many wars are we fighting now? let's name them. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, libya, and soon as mr. leon panetta says, we'll be fighting in iran. we have military operations all over the middle east. why can't we divert some of those funds, cut some of those wars and not cut social security because social security never impacted on our debt. social security was funded all along so why are we cutting social security? >> guest: well, let me just assure you we are not going to cut social security, okay? i think there might be efforts in the house to cut social security, and it might possibly pass, although i certainly know that the cut cap and whatever it's called won't pass because it requires a two-thirds vote and you need 50 democrats to vote for it, and i don't believe we'll have 50 democrats to vote for it, but i guarantee you if any measure passed the house of social security, it would not be taken up in the senate, and if it did, i believe the president would veto it. you know, you're a retiree, paid into social security, all of your working life, and you deserve to conti
be directly affected by a government default. paychecks for soldiers, in afghanistan and iraq and at bases around the world conceivably wouldn't go out. f.a.a. towers could shut down. border crossings could close. operations at the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. would be put at risk. safety inspections of the food that we eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. and the resulting spike in interest rates would ironically make our debt even harder to tackle because each 1% rise in interest rates alone would result in $130 billion in increased interest payments on our national debt each year. perhaps, most importantly, hard-working american families would also feel the crunch. a spike in interest rates would effectively force a tax on all americans and american businesses due to increased consumer costs. just as important, failure to raise the debt limit would lock up credit markets because the u.s. would no longer be seen as a reliable credit risk. coincidentally, mr. president, yesterday an important consumer protection law which senator lugar and i introduced and passed and you helped us
afghanistan and iraq is just not credible. we don't know what the obstacles are going to be in afghanistan and possibly iraq. we also don't know what we might have to do in the middle east going forward. afghanistan is not settled, mr. president, and we have to have a certain level of stability on the ground in afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions that we have already spent and the lives of our military personnel in afghanistan because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for terrorism that will come to our country or can come to our country. it did once already and we have been over there to try to wipe out al qaeda and the taliban, which has been in league with al qaeda. we have been over there losing american lives and spending american taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. to say that we're going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next ten years when we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground is not sound policy and it's certainly not sound national security policy. so that's illusory. and then the other
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)